..and the interviewer if he googles will find that article and see why. the guy is a legend now. bet you 20 bucks he reads slashdot.

If I was considering an applicant and the background check came up with a sex offender hit I wouldn't waste another second on him. In this case the guy wold be getting a raw deal but there's far too many engineers out there without a major red flag to make further research worth my time.

I was at a baseball game and someone thought I was a rapist being sought by the local cops, called them and said they saw me "hanging around the kids" and "acting suspicious". Well, the kids I was "hanging around" happened to be MY kids, I wasn't the rapist they were looking for, and the police were very polite and apologized for bothering me.

However, my background check now shows my ID as having been part of an investigation into a child sex crime, because technically it was- the investigation revealed that there was not actually a crime. But you won't see this on the background check, what you'll see is just the flag showing the investigation.

So I'd like to know where you hire, because I'd love to make some quick cash suing your idiot ass after you reject my application on false grounds.Moron.

It does here in California. Urinating in public can put you there. Although it gives levels of offense, I don't think people who pay attention to those lists care much as it usually says something vague like "Indecent exposure" or "Public exposure", not "Was drunk, pissed in alley" or "TSA trollin'"

No it doesn't. There is no state law regarding nudity. That said, counties or cities can enact their own local laws about it.

For example, the famous "naked guy" of Berkeley wandered around town for quite a while until the city council finally got fed up and enacted such a law.

San Francisco is at least one city that has no local law about nudity. You can be nude anywhere in public in San Francisco (except in a park due to a even more local SF Parks Dept. regulation, oddly). There's the famous Bay to Breakers race where entire groups of people do the race nude, not to mention there's public nudity for the Pride and Folsom events. There are even guys who regularly stroll the Castro and the Wharf areas nude.

Actually, the city did recently enact a local law about nudity in that if you sit down while nude, you need to sit on something like a towel. You couldn't very well have such a law if there were a blanket prohibition on nudity.

What part of "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" do they not understand? That's not even pissing on the bill of rights. That's wiping their ass with the body of the Constitution itself.

An ex post facto law need not criminalize anything. Even laws that add additional punishments after sentencing are considered an ex post facto law. The specious reasoning behind allowing this absurdity is that being put on a sex offender list is not a punishment. And this was the point at which it became perfectly clear that the SCOTUS has lost all touch with reality.

My friend's dad is on the list - he ducked behind a bush to urinate out of sight because no public restrooms were available. Some prude saw him go behind the bush but didn't actually see him urinate, was "offended" and called the cops. It ended his teaching career because he is now on the sex offender registry. It is total bullshit. Another thing that can land you there: if you get laid and the chick later changes her mind and presses rape charges, even though she was totally willing at the time. Congrats, you scoring at the bar the other night might just have landed you on a sex offender list.

Besides, what the hell is wrong with nudity? Why are we in America so terrified of the human body?

TFA:PORTLAND, Ore. -- A man who said he was fed up with being harassed by airport security stripped to his birthday suit while in an airport screening lane Tuesday evening and was arrested.

According to Portland police, John E. Brennan took off his clothes while going through airport screening at Portland International Airport just after 5:30 p.m. and stood naked before other passengers, including children.

TSA screeners asked Brennan to put his clothes back on, but he refused. He was arrested without incident and taken to jail, held on $4,000 bail. He faces charges of disorderly conduct and indecent exposure.

Contrast to this story:http://kdvr.com/2012/04/10/woman-strips-naked-at-dia/

At some point after airport workers told her to extinguish the cigarette, the woman took off her clothing. It wasn’t immediately clear why. However, Denver Police say it was unrelated to the smoking issue.

One witness, who did not want his name used, says other passengers on the concourse didn’t find the striptease amusing.

The whole incident played-out over a span of about 20 minutes before authorities eventually transported the woman to a hospital

Denver Police say the woman will not be arrested and she will not face any charges.

Note: if you watch the video, it's also a public location in clear sight of many passing civilians.

Except for that its legal in portland to be naked, and oregon recognized nudity as a form of political speech, i should know seeing as how I organize the 10000 person world naked bike ride in portland. http://pdxwnbr.org/

I knew a guy who was a Music Education major at a university well known for its music program. After finals, he and his friends were partying it up and he mooned some people from his second story window.

Well a mom and her kids were also down there. He was convicted of indecency and because kids were "involved" he was considered a sex offender and had to register. I don't know what he's doing now, but it ain't teaching music to kids in a public school.

But not in Oregon. Public nudity isn't even against the law here, unless there is "the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person" or "an act of sexual intercourse" is involved.

Nudity is generally considered "free speech" here. Our free speech laws are MUCH stronger than most states' are, and much stronger than the federal laws are. This guy may get off with just a charge of disorderly conduct, or if he has a decent lawyer may get off completely. There were lots of witnesses, and from all accounts he wasn't disregarding any of the screeners' commands...except removing all his clothes of course.

And, if he then fights the charges in court, he can use a Free Speech defense. This is relatively (but not entirely) clear that the nudity was a form of protest and thus speech protected by the First Amendment.

If one person strips at the TSA checkpoint they'll think he's crazy and won't let him fly.If two people strip at the TSA checkpoint they'll think their perverts and won't let either of them fly.If a hundred people strip at the TSA checkpoint they'll think it's a movement, and that'e exactly what it is.

I'm sure there are more constructive ways to protest than sitting in the front of the bus with black skin. As if the bus driver has any power... "Oh, this nigger bitch is riding in the Whites only section, that's really put a new perspective on things for me... I've got to take this straight to the top!"

All she's succeeded in doing is humiliating herself, her family, earning a criminal record, landing on the violent seditionist list, jeopardizing future employment options, and probably making a bunch of people around her nervous/scared (because, really, what sane or stable nigger does that?). This was a completely ineffective protest.

It's not against the law in Oregon to be naked in public, unless the purpose was "arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person", or it includes "an act of sexual intercourse". As a fellow Oregonian, liberal, and opponent of these ever-increasing draconian searches before flying, I think it's great he made this political statement.

Hooray for our puritanical society. Two people could beat the living shit out of each other in front of kids, which is almost certainly far more damaging to a kid's psyche than this incident, and as long as they don't press charges on each other, the most they'd get is a disturbing the peace ticket. Police officers will publicly taser (effectively, short-term torture) anyone who doesn't follow their instructions immediately and without question, although arguably that's a good lesson for a child to learn. But appearing naked in a context where they're voluntary observers at most (i.e. they can look away, and there's no stress at doing so because nobody is observing them back, making it more akin to seeing someone naked on an ultra-hi-def 3D TV than an encounter with a pervert), and he's a child molester. It's ridiculous, and anybody with an ounce of sense will see that if they actually look at the details, but the automated list escalates the offense from a silly if ill-conceived protest to a potentially life-ruining thing. I don't care if it was somebody protesting for increased TSA searches and power, the offense does not deserve that.

I personally think this guy is a hero. If he needs any help with legal costs or finding employment in the future, I'll be donating for sure. My thanks to anyone who draws more attention to how screwed up the state of things is, especially if it's in such a funny way.

Police officers will publicly taser (effectively, short-term torture) anyone who doesn't follow their instructions immediately and without question, although arguably that's a good lesson for a child to learn.

Why the fuck would that be a good lesson for anyone, much less a child.

Sorry, I left out part of the sentence I'd meant to put in there, and thought it wasn't worth a self-reply to clarify due to obviousness (forgetting that it's obviously going to be obvious to me, I was thinking it, but not necessarily obvious what I meant to others, who are used to people with awful opinions posting on slashdot): I think it's an horrific thing that it happens, and that the lesson is one of the most traumatic things a child is can be subjected to, but it's better than being ignorant of it.

I say arguably, because some might think ignorance of the reality is better, at least until they're likely to have to deal with it personally.

Like all criminal cases in the US, the outcome is dependent on these things in this order: arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, judge presiding over case, jury (if it comes to this).

This is how some of you have been caught urinating in public and were only given a court date and a fine. I hate the system as much as the next guy, but I find it unlikely very many people caught drunk and urinating in public have been put on the sex offender list. Especially if you're not an asshole and/or hired a decent lawyer.

So your lesson is assholes and poor people deserve to have their lives destroyed for tinkling?

Nice. I agree, I won't speak out for public urinators either, because I'm not one myself. Something tells me that will be the last we hear of this vicious cycle!

Except that, of course, jury nullification only works if you get a clueful jury member who actually wants to do the right thing instead of believing the judge when he says: "Your only job is to determine if this man did or did not expose himself to the public in a public place."

It also depends upon a jury member with background knowledge managing to make it through voir dire without getting disqualified as a juror, and the fact that he made it through not resulting in a mistrial.

In real trials, your lawyer usually isn't *allowed* to reveal to the jury *why* you presumably might have been motivated to do something, if the prosecution can convince the judge that doing so might incite the jury to find you innocent because it approved of your reasons or what you did, as opposed to believing whether or not you did it (regardless of motive). That's part of the reason why most defendants end up accepting plea bargains or not taking the stand in their own defense. Their attorney realizes that the defendant won't actually be *allowed* to say anything in his defense, and taking the stand will just give the prosecution an excuse to flog their metaphorically-bound+gagged defendant even harder.

That's why it's so suicidal to count upon "no jury would ever convict me" logic. 99 times out of 100, the jury will never be allowed to find out why they wouldn't otherwise be willing to convict you, and you won't be allowed to tell them. And if you do, you'll be sent back to square one and subjected to a new trial, and if you do it again, you'll start getting imprisoned for contempt each time you try. Few things suck more than being a juror on a case, witnessing a trial, quickly agreeing to what seems to be a straightforward 'guilty' verdict, walking out to the parking garage feeling warm & fuzzy about protecting democracy & freedom... then seeing on the news that you just destroyed someone's life by convicting him of a major crime for something that was an absurdly inflated charge initiated by something stupid and minor, pursued by a prosecutor whose only concern was keeping up his quota of convictions and having numbers to show he's "tough on crime".

If you want to be heroic... don't fly. No, I mean that truly... and if you have a travel job, well, get a different one. Sacrifice something meaningful.

You don't need to take a bus? tell that to Rosa Parks. Back then "the law" made sense even though it was not right. Maybe this guy did something stupid, perhaps his actions illustrate a large problem to many others. Gutsiest move this guy did, like walking into a hailstorm of bullets and hope his sacrifice will be for the greater good.

Marrying a bitch is a dangerous thing to do (dangerous to one's own sanity). For men, not noticing she's a bitch because you can't look beyond her body, getting her to want you not because of your character (that she is not mature enough to admire) but because you "got game" (put her on a pedestal), that's what puts them in danger.

But marrying a woman who is not a bitch? Then you can be honest with her and she can be honest with you. You don't need her approval for everything you do, nor does she need yours. Sort of like you may read a book I don't like or listen to music I find distasteful and you don't need me to sign off on it. For me this is normal. For some it's sadly "unrealistic".

I notice most people do not relate honestly. They have little white lies and other ways to tiptoe around each other because each person never fully accepted who the other is prior to marriage.

I've got a cousin who loves to mess with people who mess with him. When telemarketers call, he tries to keep them on the line as long as possible, only to tell them at the end that he's not interested. When people try to push brochures or flyers on him, he grabs as many as he can carry, crumples them up in front of the sales drone, and throws them in the trash. He's quite clever and takes a great delight in his ingenuity (my favorite is when he goes off on telemarketers, yelling "I'm trying to masturbate here!!!").

His answer to the TSA pat-down? He starts acting like he's getting off on it and then hits on the TSA agent (male or female) at the end of it.

Telemarketers are just doing their job. Tell them up-front "Please remove me from your list." and let them get on with it. This is another instance of "shoot the messenger."

The people who get paid minimum wage to hand out flyers are also just doing their job. What happens when they go back to their boss and say "Some guy grabbed all my flyers and destroyed them." Think they're going to keep that job they desperately need?

As for the TSA: Right on. That is the absolute correct response. Make them uncomfortable giving pat-downs, and maybe they'll put the pressure on the higher-ups.

When your job is to annoy me, you've crossed a line. I don't care what sob story you have, I make it a point to chew out every vendor cold-call and telemarketer that has the misfortune of dialing my number.

Yeah, when I was in the US (in my country telemarketing is illegal), I made it a point to try to get telemarketers to cry on the phone. I went along with something like: "You should have listened to your mother when she told you to study and you wouldn't be pissing off people for 4$ an hour now."

the best thing to have when dealing with Telemarketers (in the US) is a printed copy of 47CFR64.1200.

in fact if they are any kind of smart they will hang up on you if they even think you are aware of the contents of" Title 47 - Telecommunication. CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED). SUBCHAPTER B - COMMON CARRIER SERVICES (CONTINUED). PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS. Subpart L - Restrictions on Telemarketing, "

and yes you can ask for 1 the person doing the calls name 2 the name of the business the call is on behalf of 3 a contact number for that business (and they are required to give correct answers)

also btw you are allowed to record everything also (since any laws regarding recording drop out due to the telemarketers commonly recording things on their end)

All of the above have freely chosen to be public representatives of an obnoxious legal entity. They have all chosen to intrude upon others in exchange for a few bux (probably very few). Most often, any attempt to contact their employer will only result in a conversation with more peons who have also chosen to be public representatives of the same annoying entity.

Telemarketers are just doing their job. Tell them up-front "Please remove me from your list." and let them get on with it

No. The longer a telemarketer spends on the phone with someone, the fewer people he can harass. The fewer people he harasses, the less profitable the business model is. The less profitable the business model is, the less likely I will have to deal with telemarketers in the future.

Don't be mad at me. Be mad at the people who run the economy for not providing honest work.

So are soldiers, TSA agents or, for that matter, suicide bombers. It doesn't make it better. Unless they are slaves or otherwise forced, they made a choice to do that job. It might've been a hard choice, bills to pay and all, but a choice nevertheless.

They were plainly unethical, but were they plainly unlawful? They were judged to be unlawful by the victors of the war in a trial conducted by the victors under the laws imposed by the victors. Were they unlawful under the laws he was subject to at the time he did them? I don't know, I'm asking. And before you jump to answer, try to separate the "horrific" and "unethical" from the "legal" question.

You say the TSA is operating under orders that are currently lawful. (Ethical is another question.) What happens tomorrow if a couple of new SCOTUS appointees decide the laws being carried out aren't valid? The laws change. Can you prosecute TSA agents for their acts, as Eichmann was for his? There's a tiny problem doing so -- the US Constitution prohibits ex-post-facto laws. You can't prosecute someone for doing something yesterday that wasn't illegal until today.

The two scenarios are not equivalent.

Two things don't have to be equivalent for there to be useful comparisons between them. Everyone, including myself, has at times used the "only following orders" example from WWII, but maybe it is useful to look at what exactly is happening.

It depends how he's portrayed in the news media. When the headline says: Man protests TSA by stripping naked. That doesn't sounds like he's a nutjob. And judging by what I'm reading on the MSNBC forums, it sounds like people are defending him there just as they are here. So yes, it is raising awareness.

Wrong... If the only job you can get involves you screaming at the top of your lungs through my neighborhood that you're a pretty princess, that doesn't change the fact that you are an annoyance and need to stop. The feeble-minded twits that joined with the TSA need to know by any means necessary that they are perceived as bullies and their organization is an affront to everything that America ostensibly stands for.

I am on the do not call list, even though I'm also a cell phone. Guess what? Some people don't care.

They use spoofed caller ID to tell me I can get a lower rate on a credit card. When I call back, I get either a voice mail box that is full, or the number is out of service. There is no way I've found to track these people down. The law is useless here.

This kind of telemarketing *is* illegal, and I spend as much time taking their time as I can. No apologies from me. In fact, they use a pre-screener to answer the phone. If I sound interested, I get transferred to someone who handles the call. If I sound interested, but say anything other than a simple "yes", they hang up so I can't waste their time.

They have figured out that people waste their time, and have a way to work around it. But they keep calling me - I don't get it. So far my record is 15 minutes of waffling.

TSA agents are doing their job. Being a dick to them and making their life suck (even more) just makes it worse for everyone.

Maybe if enough people were "dicks" to the TSA, the agency would not be able to hire people for "enhanced pat-downs," or they would be forced to pay such high salaries that their budget would prevent them from running the program. The willingness of TSA employees to do what they are told is what makes the scope-n-grope program possible.

they don't finger fuck anyone, and you look like an ass for making it up. Stop It, You Are Not Helping.You are making people that need to be involved think people who are against are crazy assholes. You do not win support that way, and no matter how right you may be , without support nothing changes.

I bet there are plenty of criminals who feed their families with the money they make from their crimes. Yet somehow, that does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. Why should the TSA workers, who are being paid to sexually assault members of the public, be treated any different? Nobody signs up to work for the TSA without knowing what that agency does.

We here at the TSA has been doing a spectacular job of undermining airport security and making a mockery of government policy in the wake of 9/11. we certainly dont need the help of airline passengers to continue this legacy, especially if in this case it takes all the fun out of clandestine patdowns and secret naked pictures. Now gentlemen, if you'll excuse me, i believe theres an 8 year old girl and an incontinent 72 year old diabetic that need some 'enhanced screening'

1. Seeing a naked man2. Having their eyes covered up when a naked man is seen

I would much prefer to have my child see a naked man (and explain to her why he's doing it) rather than giving her the message "a naked body is a bad thing, something awful is happening, this man is evil". The naked man wouldn't bother her in the least anyway. Why make it so?

Because their parents did it to them, and most people believe that morals are externally dictated instead of internally decided. It's not their fault; coming to that conclusion on your own is an exceptional thing. Parents should be telling their children at some point that deciding what's right and wrong is part of being an adult, but most parents' parents probably never told them that either.

That doesn't make the whole thing any more right, but it's explainable.

Horrah for this man! We need to do EVERYTHING we can RIGHT NOW to defend and support his actions.

For those of you that do not remember Cindy Sheehan, she was a lone war protester, who was ridiculed initially, by the media, by officials, and everyone else, but she bravely kept it up and turned the country around to questioning the war instead of just being "rah rah, go usa"

This person now needs our support before he's thrown in jail and made to disappear. The media need to support him, NOT ridicule him, as I'm sure they will, assuming they cover this story AT ALL.

We need to take the fight up and shed light on it, make the media question the TSA, and whether we're over-reaching in our response to 9/11.

This dude has sacrificed himself for the rest of us. Don't let his sacrifice be in vain.

I don't know what juris-dick-ion is on penis at Portland International or airports in general but Oregon has no obscenity laws due to the way the Oregon constitution is written. Since the arrest was made by Portland police it seems to indicate that this falls under local laws. The Oregon constitution's free speech language is why Portland has naked runs and naked bike rides every year without arrests. See State of Oregon v. Henry [wikipedia.org] Unless they have evidence of "attempting to arouse sexual desire" this appears to be clearly protected under free speech under the Oregon constitution.

"Being naked in public in Portland is legal if it falls within the guidelines of ORS 163.465, which are included below.
ORS 163.465. Public indecency
(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse;
(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's anorganization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restauran

Yes, it is. Just because you or I grew up with the Net and have a good (if not spectacular) understanding of how it works, does not mean everyone, particularly those of my, or his, parents age understand it. To them it is mystical.

Put another way, when the "lost" tribe of the Amazon sees a plane or helicopter, to them it's mystical. How does that big silver bird stay up there without flapping its wings?

You and I know how it works, but they don't. They haven't grown up in the trappings of modern society. The same with this guys father. He didn't grow up with BBS, programming or anything else related to how modern telecommunications work.

It's this attitude which ticks me off when dealing with (some) people in the IT world. To them, everything is ho hum and they condescend to those who don't grok whatever the subject is. I'm sure if someone came along and started talking about a subject which you know nothing about, or care to know about, and they started rattling off this and that, to you it would seem mystical because you have no frame of reference.

It's one thing to make fun of people who, after repeatedly being told what to do or not do, still make the same computer mistake. It's quite another to go after people who admit they are ignorant of a subject. At least they're being honest about what they know and don't know.